Standing Committee C

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Female Genital Mutilation Bill

Roger Gale: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Hon. Members may remove their jackets if they wish to do so. I welcome you all to the Committee and I ask the promoter of the Bill to speak to clause 1 stand part.Clause 1 Offence of female genital mutilation

Clause 1 - Offence of female genital mutilation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Ann Clwyd: It is a long time since I served on a Committee under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale, and it is a pleasure to do so once more. I thank everyone who assisted me in securing an early sitting of the Committee, and I hope that the Bill will proceed rapidly through the House.
 Clause 1 re-enacts and extends the provisions of the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985, which by virtue of clause 7 ceases to have effect. Repealing and re-enacting the 1985 Act allows the short title of the Bill to describe more accurately the prohibited acts and removes any suggestion of acceptability that the term ''circumcision'' might imply. 
 Subsection (1) re-enacts section 1(1)(a) of the 1985 Act, which describes the prohibited acts. Subsections (2) and (3) re-enact, in simpler terms, section 2(1)(a) and (b) of the 1985 Act, which provides an exemption for necessary surgical operations and operations carried out in connection with childbirth in the United Kingdom by a registered medical practitioner, a registered midwife or a person training to be one. 
 The purpose of subsection (4) is to extend the exception that applies to legitimate surgical operations carried out in the United Kingdom to such operations carried out outside the UK, because it would not be right to criminalise outside the United Kingdom operations that are not criminal in this country. However, extending the application of the exception so that it applies to operations carried out abroad by a ''registered medical practitioner'' or ''registered midwife'' is problematic because not all foreign countries have a registration system. 
 It would be impossible to draw up a list of all the foreign qualifications that we would want to recognise for these purposes, and the profession and status of midwife is unique to this country. Subsection (4) therefore applies broadly to the overseas equivalents of such persons and, in the event of a prosecution, it will be for the UK courts to determine whether a person carrying out an operation overseas was qualified to do so. 
 Subsection (5) re-enacts section 2(2) of the 1985 Act, which provides that for the purpose of 
 determining whether an operation is necessary for the mental health of a person, no account should be taken of any belief that the operation is needed as a matter of custom or ritual.

Jenny Tonge: I have a few things to say about the Bill as I have some direct personal experience that will be useful to the Committee.
 I remember vividly my first experience some 15 years ago of a patient who had suffered female genital mutilation. A beautiful young anglicised Somali girl who had been in this country for some time asked if I could examine her and give her some advice because she wanted to be married. When I looked at her, I found that she had the appearance of a baby doll—all the women here will know that dolls are noted for their lack of sexuality. Apart from a hole where the urine and the blood presumably came out, there was nothing there. I could not believe it, and I confess that I did not know what I was looking at; I had to refer the girl on. I hope that after some reconstructive surgery she was able to have some sort of marital relations with her husband. 
 That experience was extremely shocking to me. I do not want people to think that the procedure is not very terrible. It makes one faint to think that not only does the process take place without anaesthetic, antibiotics or antiseptics, but the girl is held down while it is done. 
 I should like to add that I am not in favour of unnecessary surgical operations on female organs—or male organs, for that matter. Sometimes we do not address that seriously enough or make sufficient provision to ensure that such procedures are carried out under proper surgical conditions and for good medical reasons. 
 The first question that I hope the promoter of the Bill can answer is whether the reason that we have never had any prosecutions under the 1985 Act is to do with the ignorance of medical professionals, people working in education and the police. I was totally ignorant and think that there may be a lot of ignorance on the subject, which has resulted in there being no prosecutions and people hesitating to go down that route. We must address that important issue. If there is to be any secondary legislation once the Bill is made law, will it say anything about education of medical and nursing professionals, teachers or the police? If children are going to be taken out of the country and brought back again, ostensibly for a holiday, how can we check whether they are intact before they go and are not intact when they come back? I have wrestled with that question. Sensitive handling by doctors, teachers and the police will be required.

Peter Luff: The hon. Lady talks about secondary legislation. I am trying to follow her argument and I wonder what context she has in mind.

Jenny Tonge: I was just asking the question, because often detailed provisions are found in secondary legislation that is drawn up by the relevant Department to back up primary legislation that we have passed. I remember from when I was a member
 of the Standing Committee that considered what became the Export Control Act 2002 that the devil was in the detail. I am just asking whether we are going to ensure that professionals who may have to verify that FGM practices are being carried out have received the proper training. How are we going to introduce such a very intrusive examination? It will be difficult to police, for example, the case of a young girl who has been given indefinite leave to remain here, has become a British citizen, yet is taken off to north Africa or wherever for a ''holiday''—in fact, for that operation to be done.
 Will the legislation cover asylum seekers who have perhaps been given a year in which to remain in this country, or will only residents and British citizens be covered? Non-governmental organisations have raised that issue. It is important that we protect asylum seekers who come to this country—indeed, I think that escaping FGM should be a reason to grant asylum. Any woman who has faced it and managed to get away from the country where it happened should be granted asylum without more ado. We must consider that. 
 The other thing that worries me slightly is the wording in respect of reasons of mental health. I know how much cosmetic breast surgery has been carried out in the private sector in this country for mental health reasons: we do not like our big boobs, or we do not like our very tiny ones, or whatever. Often the reason given for such surgery is that the mental health of the woman concerned is being affected and therefore the surgeon, at great price, will carry out the operation. 
 The same can be said—again, I speak from some medical experience—about vaginas that do not quite fit the bill, for example, they may not fit the requirements of someone's partner. I have seen many such cases, and it is not always a result of childbirth. Mental health reasons could be cited in such cases. I am sure that Committee members all have copies of the advert for ''designer vaginas'' sent by one of the NGOs; it makes one feel slightly sick. However, when we remember that there are now designer breasts and that women are required to be very sexual creatures and attractive to the opposite sex in many complicated ways, we have cause to be worried. 
 Those are the questions in my mind. I hope that the promoter of the Bill will be able to go some way to addressing them. 
Several hon. Members rose—

Roger Gale: Order. I understand that it is necessary to set the debate on such a subject in context, and on that basis I am perfectly prepared to allow a reasonably wide-ranging debate on clause 1. However, I do not want Committee members to believe that that gives them licence to go free range on anything at any time. We need to keep the Committee—particularly on a private Member's Bill—in order.
 I propose to follow the broad traditions of Committees, even though it is a private Member's Bill and is not therefore in the charge of a Minister, and call Back Benchers first, if that is helpful to the 
 Minister. I will then call the Minister to make any observations that he wishes to make on behalf of the Government. It would help me to call hon. Members if, as on the Floor of the House, they could give some indication if they wish to speak in the debate.

Angela Watkinson: I shall be brief and say only how much I welcome this splendid piece of legislation. If the Bill is instrumental in sparing one young woman the appalling suffering that FGM causes, it will have been worth while. I wish it a speedy passage through Parliament.

Paul Goggins: I will not detain you or the Committee for long, Mr. Gale. It is good to see you in the Chair today.
 My main role as a Home Office Minister is to say how strongly the Government support the Bill. In the spirit of the debate so far, I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on introducing the Bill. It is another example of the unstinting efforts that she makes to uphold human rights in this country and elsewhere in the world. I would also like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who introduced the private Member's Bill that became the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985. The cause was probably much less popular in those days than it is today. We heard on Second Reading about some of the difficult arguments that the hon. Lady had to make, and she deserves great credit. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) chairs the all-party group on population, development and reproductive health and she organised the parliamentary hearings in 2000. Both those hearings and the previous legislation flow into the Bill that we are considering today. 
 Clause 1 describes the offence of female genital mutilation. It makes it clear that no one who performs a surgical operation on a girl in a way that is necessary for her health will be open to prosecution, but that, equally, cultural norms and beliefs are not justification for an act that is brutal and can have such dire consequences. First, it is worth underlining that FGM has no religious significance. Secondly, although we recognise that FGM can be deeply ingrained in the culture and traditions of those who practice it, respect for other cultures does not mean accepting the unacceptable. Abuse of children, which is what FGM is, is completely unacceptable. 
 The Bill also makes it clear that the power to prosecute will be available not only for offences committed in the United Kingdom, where the practice is already illegal, but those committed in other countries, too—even in countries where the practice is still legal. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) asked why there had been no prosecutions under existing legislation. One reason is that there is a loophole that has allowed people to take children out of the country to have the procedure performed. The Bill will close that loophole, so prosecutions will be much more likely than in the past.

Jenny Tonge: I have evidence, albeit anecdotal, that the procedure has been carried out by some medical professionals in this country, but there have never been prosecutions here. As the hon. Member for Calder Valley will confirm, quite a lot of evidence that FGM happens here, too, was presented at the hearings.

Paul Goggins: I fully accept that. We are dealing with cultural pressures within quite closed communities and, often, with young and vulnerable children. It is very difficult for them to report that that type of crime has been committed. All those factors have an impact. We certainly need to close loopholes in legislation, but the hon. Lady is right to say that we need both to send a strong message in legislation and to back that up with education for the public and members of those communities, as well as education and training for the professionals involved.

Peter Luff: If a general practitioner is presented with a young girl who has experienced this dreadful act, will he or she have a duty of care to try to ensure that investigations are carried out into the circumstances in which the procedure was performed?

Paul Goggins: I certainly hope that a general practitioner or any health practitioner would follow up such cases urgently, not only by providing the appropriate care but by trying to find out how it happened. However, it is difficult territory because it is equally important that we do not do things that discourage people from seeking the health care that they need. If the message goes out that seeking medical attention has other consequences, it could make matters difficult. That is why not only statutory services, but voluntary services must adopt a sensitive approach.
 Speaking of the voluntary sector, I pay tribute to the work of organisations such as Forward and the Agency for Culture and Change Management, which is supported by Home Office funding. Both organisations do very important work to highlight these issues. It is also important to acknowledge the work of the Department for International Development. I understand that, in recent years, it has invested £1.2 million in developing countries such as Ghana, Kenya, Ethiopia and many others, not least to help those who traditionally earned their living by carrying out these procedures to find other forms of employment. That is very important, and it is good to know that in his new role the Minister of State, Department for International Development, who replied for the Government on Second Reading, is keeping his eye on that and a lot of other important work in this field. 
 I have alluded to other aspects of the Bill at this stage because I do not intend to make speeches on other clauses unless hon. Members seek clarification of specific issues. Let me say simply that I have long admired the dedication of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley and I look forward to her taking the Bill through Committee this afternoon.

Chris McCafferty: Will my hon. Friend the Minister clarify whether the Bill covers asylum seekers? The Bill does not make that clear.
 Many people who seek asylum in this country come from countries where FGM is commonly practised. It would be of great value if the Bill covered the children of such asylum seekers.

Paul Goggins: As I understand it, FGM or fears in relation to FGM could, if they were proved, be grounds for making a claim for asylum. There has to be genuine and well founded fear to substantiate an asylum claim. That could well be argued and evidence would need to be adduced for it.
 My hon. Friend's question relates to a slightly wider argument about how far the Bill's remit might extend. It is intended to cover UK nationals and long-term UK residents. However, there are limits to how far the UK legislative remit can run: we cannot prosecute anyone in the world committing the offence; there has to be some direct connection to this country. It could be argued that the Bill would not cover someone who has just arrived here.

Angela Watkinson: I have heard of cases in which, although the mother of the child is enlightened and against the practice, the grandmother is still deeply into her own culture and possibly non-English speaking as well. There have been instances in which, when the mother is out, the grandmother takes the opportunity to perform the operation.

Paul Goggins: I understand that such scenarios arise. The Bill covers those circumstances. It is important to emphasise that any procedure that is carried out in this country is already covered.
 I hope that that has helped to clarify the position for my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley. Perhaps she will say whether she is satisfied.

Chris McCafferty: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but it does not entirely answer my question. I understand that the Bill would cover UK permanent residents—people who are ordinarily resident in this country without being subject under immigrations laws to any restrictions on the period for which they can remain. I am more concerned about people who are seeking asylum but who have not yet been granted refugee status. I appreciate that people in that category are unlikely to leave the country for whatever reason and that that is a deterrent in itself, but that is the point on which I would like clarification. In addition, does the Bill cover foreign students or visitors?

Paul Goggins: It is clear that there must be a direct connection to this country in terms of citizenship or residency. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that it is highly unlikely that someone who was in the process of seeking asylum would leave the country to pursue an FGM procedure, because if they left the country their application for asylum would automatically fall and they would therefore no longer be an asylum seeker. The likelihood is that if the procedure were to be carried out, it would be in this country rather than another; as I have already explained, the procedure is already illegal in this country and it will continue to be illegal under the Bill, so such cases would be covered. Fear of FGM could be grounds for an asylum claim, although there is no guarantee. It is highly unlikely that an asylum seeker would leave the country to have the procedure carried out elsewhere.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Offence of assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl's genitalia

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Ann Clwyd: The clause creates a new offence. Subsection (1) makes it an offence for a person in the UK to aid, abet, counsel or procure the performance outside the UK of a relevant act of FGM that is carried out by a person who is not a UK national or permanent UK resident. Without that provision, it would be an offence for a person in the UK, a UK national, or permanent UK resident outside the UK to aid, abet, counsel or procure an FGM operation outside the UK only if the operation were carried out by a UK national or permanent UK resident. If an operation is carried out abroad, that is unlikely to be the case, so we need to make specific provision for operations carried out abroad by foreign nationals.
 By virtue of subsection (2), the offence applies only when the victim is a UK national or permanent UK resident. Restricting the clause to victims who are UK nationals or permanent UK residents increases the connection to the UK. Without such a restriction, we would be making it an offence to assist an FGM operation carried out abroad by a person who has no connection to the UK on a victim who has no connection to the UK. It is right that all children should be protected from FGM, whatever their nationality or residency, but it does not necessarily fall to, nor is it possible for, the UK to legislate to protect all victims outside our own jurisdiction. 
 Subsection (3) ensures that the exception for necessary surgical operations, which applies for the purposes of clause 1, also applies to clause 3. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Extension of sections 1 to 3

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Ann Clwyd: The clause creates extraterritorial offences, which is the main purpose of the Bill. Subsection (1) extends clauses 1, 2 and 3 to prohibited acts committed outside the UK by a UK national or permanent UK resident. Subsection (2) provides that any such act may be tried in the courts of England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Permanent UK residents are people who ordinarily live in this country, without being subject under immigration laws to any restriction on the period for which they may remain. The Bill will therefore catch those who have a substantial connection to the UK but not those who
 are here temporarily, such as foreign students or visitors.
 It is unusual in international law for a state to take jurisdiction over acts committed abroad by its residents—permanent or otherwise—as well as its nationals unless required to do so by an international agreement, particularly when the act is not illegal in the country where it is committed. The extent to which the Bill takes jurisdiction is arguably unprecedented. I understand the concern of those who argue that the extraterritorial provisions of the Bill should apply to all UK residents who commit the prohibited acts. However, the people whom the provisions are intended to catch are those who take children abroad for FGM and then return to the UK and can thus be tried here. Those who have permanent residence here are free to leave and return to the UK at will and are thus more likely to be able to do that than those who do not. 
 Particular concern has been expressed about the fact that the clause will not apply to asylum seekers. It is, however, unlikely that asylum seekers would leave the UK for FGM-related or any other reasons because, first, an asylum application still under consideration by the Home Office will be regarded as withdrawn at the time of departure if the applicant leaves the UK and, secondly, an asylum appeal pending in the UK will be treated as abandoned if the appellant leaves the UK. 
 This clause strengthens the provisions of the 1985 Act significantly and goes a long way towards closing what has long been seen to be a serious loophole in the law. It means that people who have a close connection with the UK in the form of permanent residence can no longer evade our law by temporarily leaving the UK.

Robert Key: I rise to support the clause and the Bill in general. I believe that the vast majority of our constituents have no idea that this sort of thing happens. When I have talked about the issue to constituents, they have been deeply shocked to discover that FGM goes on, and horrified that Parliament allows it to continue. I therefore congratulate the hon. Members for Cynon Valley and for Calder Valley on the work that they have done on the issue. They enjoy my strong support and that of the vast majority of my constituents.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Penalties for offences

Ann Clwyd: The clause strengthens section 1(2)(a) of the 1985 Act by increasing the maximum penalty on conviction on indictment from five years' to 14 years' imprisonment. It re-enacts section 1(2)(b) of the 1985 Act, which provides that the maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both.
 Other than life imprisonment, 14 years is the highest sentence that can be imposed and reflects how serious we think the offence of FGM is. Increasing the 
 maximum penalty will send a powerful message about the unacceptability of FGM and will strengthen the deterrent value of the law. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 6 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Bill to be reported, without amendment. 
 Committee rose at Three o'clock.